Double-dip recession by SignyM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

dbl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 5:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The evidence is everywhere.

The housing market took yet another nosedive when the first-time homebuyer's assistance ran out, even tho both rates and prices are down. Retail sales are down. Construction and manufacturing fell. Jobs are down. Even the friggin' stock-market.... the indicator most disconnected from Main Street... is down. Unless people start buying again, the economy will prolly go into a self-propelled nosedive.

But what are people going to buy WITH? That's the conundrum of capitalism: If a few people have most of the money, most people CAN'T buy. They have nothing to buy with.

During the economic collapse of late 2008, many of the economists were openly pondering whether this would be a V-shaped recession (the best but most unlikely scenario: a sharp drop and quick rise), U-shaped, W-shaped, or L-shaped (a drop, with NO recovery for the foreseeable future). Personally, I think they got it all wrong... there is no letter to describe what happens when an economy falls, stabilizes for a bit, then falls again.

This will not be solved until income and wealth are more equitably redistributed, as it was during the last Great Depression

http://247wallst.com/2010/08/13/what-the-double-dip-recession-will-loo
k-like/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 5:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It was only through some kind of miraculous war-movie mortar physics that I survived the last downturn.

(You know, where the mortar goes off, and the whole platoon dies, except for one guy looking around with a combination of bewilderment and survivor's guilt?)

I don't know if I'd survive another downturn. I can't see how. Honestly, I'm just not that valuable to my organization, and even random chance is liable to hit me with some shrapnel anyway.

I can tell you that I think our company is expecting another downturn, or at least a completely stalled recovery.

After things started to get slightly better, they hired a bunch of temps to prepare for the increased workload as we dove in to capture the swelling market.

In the past couple of months, those temps have been disappearing.

Now it's pretty much just the permanent employees left.

Permanent being, you know, one of those Princess Bride words.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I'm worried.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:06 AM

Quote:
This will not be solved until income and wealth are more equitably redistributed, as it was during the last Great Depression

It seems kind of agenda forward to bring redistribution of wealth into the equation. Disparity of wealth from my understanding really only played a small role in the Great Depression, in that there were some rich guys who royally fucked up the stock markets. The actual gap in the wealth didn't seem to be the cause itself. The cause was greed, the disparity of wealth was a symptom. You're proposing treating a symptom, and not the disease.

Now, I like exploitive asshole fatcats as much as anyone, but if we want to talk problems *ticks on fingers* overseas job loss, and the collapse of inflationary bubbles created when any empire stretches beyond it's means, whether it be economic or military.

I don't understand advocating MORE centralization, which is what you'd have to create in order to redistribute that wealth. More centralization is what created the problem in the first place (including, as a subset, upward aggregation of capital). The solution to me is community development and sustainability, and not the kind that comes down from on high, but locally organized. Anything else just seems to feed the machine.

Every day, my bus takes me past a community garden, and I want in on that so bad I can taste it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:17 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I personally would like to see the government ponder this problem for the next ten years and do very little about it.

Meanwhile, they can do 'good idea' things that require very little inspired thought. Like perform necessary infrastructure investment (that we have needed for some time anyway) and dismantle the war machine, perhaps hiring border security to replace lost military jobs and make all the border states feel safer and cozier in their beds.

That's really the extent of aggressive government intervention I want to see on this issue. I think aggressively doing very little is the best thing we can hope for from our government. I know I'll be on the bottom when this thing hits the basement, but we do need to find that basement so that we can dust ourselves off and begin the long climb.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:22 AM

MINCINGBEAST

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's coming. But I know what'll fix it!

More money to the banks!

More money for the rich!

More money to insurances!

More military spending!

No. More War is the answer.

I hear Iran is lovely this time of year.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:30 AM

Anthony: Seconded.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 8:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The actual gap in the wealth didn't seem to be the cause itself. The cause was greed, the disparity of wealth was a symptom. You're proposing treating a symptom, and not the disease.

The ACTUAL gap in wealth just before the Great Depression was exactly the same as the ACTUAL gap in wealth just before this Great ... er... "Recession": When the top 1% owned 24% of the wealth.

Byte, I knew we were heading towards a collapse as our wealth disparity started to approach that of 1929. That's why my tagline for a long time was "Let's party like it's 1929". That tagline was a prediction based on a economic theory, a prediction and theory which both proved to be true.

As often as I have said it, it just doesn't seem to sink in: money is like blood, it only works when it's circulating. If blood is pooled at the heart, it does not good to transfuse more money into the heart. You've got to get the blood (money) flowing again.... which means it has to be distributed to the feet, the hands, the head, the bowels.

It's not a case of being "fair" to the feet, fighting for justice for the hands, or equity for the bowels. It's not an "agenda", it's a reality. Something which seems to be sorely missing from many so-called RWE posters.

Anyway, I've posted many charts and graphs in the past, showing our historic income and wealth distribution.

Income Disparity And Wealth Consolidation Show Eerie Resemblances To 1928
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/03/17/1928-resemblances/

It's hard to find a good jpg of the charts, so look it up yourself, and do some thinking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
we do need to find that basement

"We" do? What mean this "we", kimosabe? The wealthy are doing just fine. Anthony, it sounds like you think you deserve a long, hard screwing-over. Why?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:32 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's coming. But I know what'll fix it!

More money to the banks!

More money for the rich!

More money to insurances!

More military spending!

More flushing the "Obama money" down the toilet of useless domestic spending!

More Golf!

More fancy dinner parties and expensive fundraising trips!

More failed policies that waste trillions of dollars!

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I find those statements amazing. I said I found your remarks 'amazing'" Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:48 AM

Quote:

As often as I have said it, it just doesn't seem to sink in: money is like blood, it only works when it's circulating. If blood is pooled at the heart, it does not good to transfuse more money into the heart. You've got to get the blood (money) flowing again.... which means it has to be distributed to the feet, the hands, the head, the bowels.

No, look, I understand that. But I disagree with your assessment over what caused the great depression. The disparity of wealth is A problem, one that I myself would like to see solved, but not THE problem that causes inflation bubbles which then cause a failing economy. You identified a symptom, which is why your prediction was accurate, but, again, you've misdiagnosed the problem at the root of it.

>_> And yes, redistribution of wealth is an agenda, one that you are quite clearly promoting, if you persist in introducing it in settings, without coaching, that are only peripherally related to the issue at hand.

Also, I've actually seen that graph before. What strikes me is the standard of living has remained roughly the same for the middle class (ish). It still doesn't necessarily show that the great depression and our current recession were caused by a disparity of wealth, or even decreasing wealth in the hands of the middle classes thus decreasing their purchasing and consumer power; rather it might show that the richest one percent tend to get their richest just before inflation bubbles burst. Why oh why might that be, I wonder.

Quote:
so-called RWE posters.

...Suddenly I'm not a poster here? Or are you calling me a troll? Not inaccurate, I like summoning lightning from the palms of my hand, and dropping totems for buffs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:58 AM

MALACHITE

Hey Sig,

So, I'm looking at the graph, and as far as I can tell, it only says that there is kind of a correlation between the top 1% earning a high percentage of all wages with the great depression and our current recession. By its reasoning, we should also have seen some recession in 1998 as well (because the top 1% were earning quite a bit then, too) and there shouldn't have been a recession in the late 70's (when the top 1% weren't earning much). Here is a link on other recessions that this model doesn't seem to predict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

If you are trying to use this graph to show that it is the gap itself(financial disparity) between the top 1% and everyone else in income that causes problems, there is a problem. This graph only has the top 10% of earners on it. It doesn't take into account the other 90% as far as I can tell. All it points out is that when the top 1% of earners have about a 10+% higher share of total income over the people in the top 10% to top 5% of earners category, there is a correlation with recession in 2 instances (the great depression and the great recession). What bothers me is that the graph only shows a disparity between the ultra wealthy and the pretty wealthy, not between the ultra wealthy and your average joe. So, when you are saying it is the gap that actually causes the problem (as opposed to greed, over-reaching, etc.), you are meaning the gap between the ultra wealthy and the pretty wealthy, right?

By the way, this is definitely not my area of expertise, so I'm sorry if I appear ignorant on all of this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:03 AM

Quote:
"We" do? What mean this "we", kimosabe? The wealthy are doing just fine. Anthony, it sounds like you think you deserve a long, hard screwing-over. Why?

...Well, the richest of the rich are unaffected, most of their money is protected overseas. But markets that have been ravaged by speculation, the richest are FAR from just fine. The bottom has dropped out of much of the real-estate and construction business. People who were making millions, and even a few billionaires, had a lot repossessed. Much like with the Stock Market in the Great Depression, those who had assets that were mostly speculative merely had a long way to fall.

Ultimately, Sig, it's not about taking a long hard screwing over, it's watching a bunch of greedy morons topple the tower they've built. If the big businesses want to suicide so local business can grow back up, who am I to stop them? People like Anthony, or even me with my bottom of the totem pole position, and other people who've gotten shafted by them screwed up the economic climate will find some way through this, I have faith in the working class American.

We'll land on our feet, and begin rebuilding on the local and community level. Living isn't so hard as people make it out to be. Food and shelter, both of which people can work together towards if they just reach out to each other.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:50 AM

As a side note, I for some inexplicable reason currently have Yakety Sax stuck in my head, making everything inadvertently hilarious.

Uh oh!

...

...Yeah, so anyway. Just so you know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But I disagree with your assessment over what caused the great depression. The disparity of wealth is A problem, one that I myself would like to see solved, but not THE problem that causes inflation bubbles which then cause a failing economy.

Well then, you're wrong. I know that you're thinking that credit-based speculation is the "real" cause of economic depressions, but the fact is that depressions occurred long before the stock market (or indeed, the Fed) ever existed. In fact, the big depression (1873-1896) which occurred before the Great Depression happened while the USA was on a gold standard, long before the average person ever was involved with buying stocks. That is when the famous "You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold" speech was made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech

Then, as before the Great Depression, farmers and other were mired in debt due to the lack of circulating money, which was in turn due to the concentration of wealth. BYTE, you need to look beyond the last 70 years and beyond US borders and specific instances that occurred just before one depression if you want to make sense of economic history.

Quote:
You identified a symptom, which is why your prediction was accurate, but, again, you've misdiagnosed the problem at the root of it.

Are you going to say that it was "greed" and "stock speculation"? The show me how that caused all of the other previous depressions, because you haven't made your case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:19 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Anthony, it sounds like you think you deserve a long, hard screwing-over. Why?"

Hello,

Actually, you mistake my premise.

I think I'm going to get screwed over regardless.

I prefer a SHORT and HARD screwing over to the Death of a Thousand Cuts I think we're going to get.

I'm a rip-off-the-bandaid sort of guy, and if this plane is going down I prefer not to drag it across five miles of treetops before plunging into a ravine. Let's just set her down, tend the wounded, and start making our way out of here.

I feel like we are extending the descent rather than averting it. Like playing a shell game with your credit cards. Delaying the inevitable and making it worse all the while.

I want it over.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:31 PM

Quote:
In fact, the big depression (1873-1896) which occurred before the Great Depression happened while the USA was on a gold standard, long before the average person ever was involved with buying stocks. That is when the famous "You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold" speech was made.

Technically we still had banks and speculative inflation back then. I never said this cause was limited or tied to any stock market.

I also note that England has had a speculative market system since even before America had some fisticuffs with kind old King George, and they remained a close trading partner of ours even after they separated ways. They occasionally got hit hard by crashes, and we would have felt some of that by proxy.

Now, if you want to complain about the wealth discrepancy between peasants and royalty back in the feudal system, your idea about wealth getting tied up is directly applicable. But it's still more of a symptom than what I would consider a cause of the Great Depression of 1929.

When has the average person EVER been to blame for a crash? They don't have enough influence, in a stock market or elsewhere. Average people not being involved in a non-existent stockmarket in 1873 does not preclude rich people creating speculation bubbles and then screwing up the economy. The very wikipedia link you posted even says, OUTRIGHT, that the 1873 depression was caused by speculation in gold and the resulting inflation and bad credit lending practices. They then tried to switch to a silver standard to right it (or at least let it even out... Effin' economic "science")

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:06 PM

I was also thinking about Rome when I made my previous comments. Now, admittedly, I don't know enough about the fall of Rome to say out-right that some kind of speculative market crashed, but I do know that 1) there was a large disparity between rich and poor, and 2) there was rampant run-away inflation, which is a tell-tale sign of speculation.

My suspicion is, if I were to go out and look at the history, that I wouldn't find any specific market that was over-speculated for Rome, but rather that the Roman economy was based on speculative income coming from military conquest. Growth in the conquest sector slowed, then stagnated, and then Rome fell apart.

EDIT: looks like Germanic Tribes with a horseshoe invention kind of stopped the Romans. Rome began to go about their slower plan B version, which involved attracting people of the group in question into joining their armies, but it must have been at too slow a rate for them to really conquer and get the fruits of that conquest in time to balance the economic strain of inflation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:09 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
we do need to find that basement
"We" do? What mean this "we", kimosabe? The wealthy are doing just fine. Anthony, it sounds like you think you deserve a long, hard screwing-over. Why?

Yes, the wealthy are doing FAN-FUCKING-TASTIC. People seem to think of the Great Depression as being all poverty and dust bowl conditions. Truth is, the Venderbilts and the Carnegies were doing GREAT during the Depression. If you're worth 50 billion dollars, and you lose 90 percent of your wealth in a market crash, you're still a multibillionaire. You aren't going to be missing any meals if you're in the top 2%.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
As a side note, I for some inexplicable reason currently have Yakety Sax stuck in my head, making everything inadvertently hilarious.

Uh oh!

...

...Yeah, so anyway. Just so you know.

Gawd dammit, now so do I!

Yakkety Sax is insidious. I've had it in my head for days on end before.

It does make even plane crashes inadvertently hilarious, though.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I was also thinking about Rome when I made my previous comments. Now, admittedly, I don't know enough about the fall of Rome to say out-right that some kind of speculative market crashed, but I do know that 1) there was a large disparity between rich and poor, and 2) there was rampant run-away inflation, which is a tell-tale sign of speculation.

My suspicion is, if I were to go out and look at the history, that I wouldn't find any specific market that was over-speculated for Rome, but rather that the Roman economy was based on speculative income coming from military conquest. Growth in the conquest sector slowed, then stagnated, and then Rome fell apart.

Yup to all of the above. I'll add that along with all that speculation based on conquest, there also came massive costs to maintain an ever-larger military to keep and hold those conquests as the empire became ever more widespread.

Couple that to the ever-increasing taxation, the increased "tribute" given to ever more of the ruling class, etc. The system became stretched too thin, the wealth concentrated too much at the top, and the monetary and power structures became too top-heavy, and toppled over.

Sound familiar?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
As a side note, I for some inexplicable reason currently have Yakety Sax stuck in my head, making everything inadvertently hilarious.

Uh oh!

...

...Yeah, so anyway. Just so you know.

Gawd dammit, now so do I!

Yakkety Sax is insidious. I've had it in my head for days on end before.

It does make even plane crashes inadvertently hilarious, though.

I've been experimenting, and even traumatic experiences from childhood, such as the Pink Elephants on Parade sequence from Disney's Dumbo, suddenly become watchable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 5:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I feel like we are extending the descent rather than averting it. Like playing a shell game with your credit cards. Delaying the inevitable and making it worse all the while.

Then you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying. What we WERE doing 2000-2008 was concentrating wealth and playing games with credit. That was then.

What. Do. We. Do. NOW?

Well, we can CONTINUE to play games with credit, but instead of the housing bubble we can play games with the American dollar. Print money through the Fed, spend what we don't have and run up the deficit to even more astronomical heights.

But. That's. Not. What. I've. Been. Advocating!

What I've been saying is: Raise taxes on the richest 5%. A LOT. Cut military spending and put that money into the hands of working poor (which is just about everybody who works). Fix the infrastructure. Take $$ out of the insurance corporations and fund single-payer health care. Build for energy independence. Fully-fund Medicare and Social Security. Spend money on education.

DON'T increase the deficit. DON'T print more money. Redistribute what you have. Have I made myself clear? How can is possibly make myself any clearer?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:17 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

AGREE:

Cut military spending.
Fix the infrastructure.
Build for energy independence.
Fully-fund Medicare and Social Security.

MIXED FEELINGS:

Put that money into the hands of working poor
Fund single-payer health care.
Spend money on education.

DISAGREE:

Take $$ out of the insurance corporations
Raise taxes on the richest 5%

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:28 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

Well, since we're the only country to not have gone into recession yet I say: Kevin Rudd for President!!!

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 1:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
DISAGREE:
Take $$ out of the insurance corporations
Raise taxes on the richest 5%

Your loyalty to your masters is touching.

Did you ever consider, Tony, that they're taking money from YOU?

Well, you would say: Of course not. All's fair in love and... hey wait, that works in both directions, doesn't it?

Nah. The rich? Not so much. They live by different rules. Ones that say that they can take whatever they want. You? YOU have to live by rules that say you have to live on the crumbs that fall from their table.

Where's the capitalist in you, boy? The one that approaches society with a knife in its teeth, looking for self-interest? The one that says it's OK to write the rules in YOUR favor? It's people like you that will destroy capitalism, because you fail to practice it in your own interest.

The funny thing is, what I'm proposing... and what you pro-corporatists fail to realize... is the only thing that's going to save capitalism. You fail to recirculate blood through the economic body? Then you deserve whatever you get.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 1:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Now, if you want to complain about the wealth discrepancy between peasants and royalty back in the feudal system, your idea about wealth getting tied up is directly applicable. But it's still more of a symptom than what I would consider a cause of the Great Depression of 1929.

I was also thinking to the past: Rome and France 1789.

Quote:
When has the average person EVER been to blame for a crash?

Then we agree.

Quote:
They don't have enough influence, in a stock market or elsewhere. Average people not being involved in a non-existent stockmarket in 1873 does not preclude rich people creating speculation bubbles and then screwing up the economy. The very wikipedia link you posted even says, OUTRIGHT, that the 1873 depression was caused by speculation in gold and the resulting inflation and bad credit lending practices. They then tried to switch to a silver standard to right it (or at least let it even out... Effin' economic "science")

But Byte... why do rich people speculate to begin with?*

It's not just "greed". Greed is a constant. EVERY rich person wants to make money 24/7. If greed were the only factor, we would have speculative bubbles followed by crashes every single year, or at random. Whenever a new fad caught the eyes of the wealthy.

But we don't. We have economic booms followed by busts, which even dimwitted economic theorists realize are spaced out over decades. So why do these booms and busts occur in cycles? THAT has been the leading question since people started studying economics, because they hope to control those cycles.

I can't do your thinking for you. But look around you: The economy is failing because people aren't buying. People aren't buying because they have no money. They have no money because it's been collected up by a very few.... more so than at any other time except just before the LAST great collapse. (And the one before that.)

The monetarist "fix"... the one advocated by macroeconomic theorists (It's a major economic theory, not just a crackpot idea. Look it up)... has been to expand the money supply through low rates or government deficit spending. We've gone through that "fix" and it hasn't worked. When there is deflation (as we are very close to seeing) even lowering interest rates isn't going to work because... yanno... they can't go to less than zero!

Then what?

ETA *I realized that I never answered that question. Rich people speculate when they have money to invest in a contracting economy. They're not about to invest in production for heaven's sake because... like I said before... nobody's buying! So why make more refrigerators, houses, and cars? You won't get much of a return on your investment that way.

If YOU had a wad of cash, Byte, and you were looking to park it someplace where it would make more money, where would YOU put it right now? What underlying investment wouldn't depend on increased demand and an expanding economy? Mergers and acquisitions, maybe? Foreign currency? Gold? In other words: speculation.

That's why speculation always occurs just before a crash: Speculation is a SYMPTOM, not a cause. Specifically, it's a symptom of a contracting economy. It's not greed, it's economics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 2:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

AGREE:

Cut military spending.
Fix the infrastructure.
Build for energy independence.
Fully-fund Medicare and Social Security.

Agree.

Quote:

MIXED FEELINGS:

Put that money into the hands of working poor
Fund single-payer health care.
Spend money on education.

Under "spend money on education", I'd expand that to "spend money funding ALL KINDS of education". That mean trade and vo-tech schools, traditional colleges, community colleges, apprenticeships, adult and continuing education, etc.

Quote:

DISAGREE:

Take $$ out of the insurance corporations
Raise taxes on the richest 5%

Y'know, Anthony, you can raise taxes on the richest 5% (or even 2%) without raising their INCOME taxes. The estate tax, for instance, applies only to estates valued beyond $3.5 million. And if I tax the money that your long-lost uncle left you, I'm *NOT* taking *your* "hard-earned money", because you didn't do anything to earn it other than be born.

That's only one tiny piece of it, though.

Payroll/Social Security taxes. Cap 'em at 5% (that's actually a tax CUT for every single person earning less than $106,800/yr under the current system), but expand them to everyone earning a paycheck. Currently, your payroll taxes are paid on that first $106.8k of income per year, and zero after that - which means if you earn under $100k/yr, you're paying a HIGHER payroll tax percentage than the guy earning $20,000,000 per year. So apply it to all of your earnings. Hey, people keep clamoring for a "fair tax", right? What's more fair than having everyone pay the same rate on every penny?

Capital gains tax. Either cut the income tax rates, or raise the capital gains rates, or (better yet), do both and make them meet in the middle. Currently, the cap-gains tax rate is 15%, while the top nominal income tax rate is 36%. So if you're one of those who makes twenty million a year, you set it up so $500k is "pay" and the rest is "capital gains", so is taxed at a much lower rate. Fix that shit. Close the loopholes that only the very rich get to take advantage of.

After all, fair's fair, right?

On income taxes, some want a flat tax rate, some want a more progressive rate (our economy was doing better when the top rate was 91%, after all). There are valid arguments for both sides. Some want to complain and ask "Why should Rush Limbaugh pay so much more than me?" My short answer? Because he's got so much more to lose. He's got a whole lot more reasons to WANT a strong defense to protect HIS assets than I do, since I don't have nearly the assets he does, and socialism sounds better to me than it does to him, I'd bet. ;)

But just equalizing the payroll taxes, the estate taxes, and the capital gains taxes would likely negate even needing to have the income tax debate.

Many will argue that doing so would kill jobs. Under all the Bush tax cuts, how many jobs were created? Wait, let me clarify: How many LONG-TERM, PERMANENT, FULL-TIME PRIVATE-SECTOR jobs were created by the Bush economic policies? Lots and lots and lots of government jobs - most of them soldiering and security theatre - but how many private-sector jobs?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 2:05 AM

As for "take money out of the insurance companies" - I'm not saying we should ROB them; for starters, let's just stop shoveling money at them! If they're posting record profits, they really should have to "show just cause" before raising rates across the board. I mean, really, isn't that just gouging, raising prices for no other reason than just because you can?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 2:20 AM

MALACHITE

Hey Sig,
You haven't had a chance to respond to my concerns about the ability of the graph you posted to accurately predict a recession and the fact that it doesn't describe a gap between the rich and the poor, but only a gap between the ultra rich and the pretty rich, yet, so I figured I'd post again, because I'm curious about your response.
I was also wondering where the data points on the graph are coming from. For example, it assumed, if I'm remembering right, that the top 1% made over 1 million dollars. So, did they adjust everyone's income for inflation using the value of 2006 dollars as the standard? Or does inflation not matter in this graph and their dollar amounts apply just to the people in the year 2006, not to all the other years they describe?
Lastly, where do they get their numbers indicating how much money people made? From what people reported on their income taxes? If so, these numbers will not truly be representative of how much wealth a person has and won't really represent how much wealth the ultrarich actually control. What I mean is, this graph won't take into account how much real estate property a person owns, how much money a wealthy person put in overseas accounts (and got out of having to report to the irs to pay taxes on), and how much money they have just building up in stock investments (they could have millions in stocks which they would never have to report to the irs until they actually decided to sell the stocks. In the meantime, their wealth is building, but not in a manner that is reportable to the irs). So, my concern is that the ultrarich are far wealthier and thus, the gap between the ultrarich and pretty rich may, in fact, be wider than what is represented in the graph you mentioned. Because of this, it is hard to draw any conclusions from that particular graph. Any thoughts about this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 2:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Mike, at the risk of undercutting your fine points with Anthony, I've just gotta get in a couple of jabs in his direction bc I'm so frustrated with his obtuseness: Tony believes in getting screwed over. Anything else just isn't "fair". That's his mantra, and he's sticking to it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 2:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Malachite: Yes, they always chart this is "constant dollars" (unless they want to cheat). But in this case, since the chart shows distribution (not absolute wealth) as a percent of total, it doesn't matter whether it's in constant dollars of not bc the dollars in the numerator cancel out the dollars in the denominator.

AFA what the numbers represent: Sometimes they're charted as income, sometimes they're estimated as total wealth. There have been many papers looking at both.

You had a number of other questions about recessions in general. But you can't lump all recessions together, because there are big ones and not-so-big ones. The really big ones occur roughly every 60 years or so, although in this last case monetarist policy delayed the collapse by 20 years.

There are graphs which show income (or wealth) distribution by quintiles, deciles, centiles and even finer gradations, but they're not always easy to find and post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 2:58 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

This Is Not a Recovery by PAUL KRUGMAN
www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27krugman.html

Why are people who know better sugar-coating economic reality? The answer, I’m sorry to say, is that it’s all about evading responsibility.

In the case of the Fed, admitting that the economy isn’t recovering would put the institution under pressure to do more. And so far, at least, the Fed seems more afraid of the possible loss of face if it tries to help the economy and fails than it is of the costs to the American people if it does nothing, and settles for a recovery that isn’t.

In the case of the Obama administration, officials seem loath to admit that the original stimulus was too small. True, it was enough to limit the depth of the slump — a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office says unemployment would probably be well into double digits now without the stimulus — but it wasn’t big enough to bring unemployment down significantly.

Now, it’s arguable that even in early 2009, when President Obama was at the peak of his popularity, he couldn’t have gotten a bigger plan through the Senate. And he certainly couldn’t pass a supplemental stimulus now. So officials could, with considerable justification, place the onus for the non-recovery on Republican obstructionism. But they’ve chosen, instead, to draw smiley faces on a grim picture, convincing nobody. And the likely result in November — big gains for the obstructionists — will paralyze policy for years to come.

So what should officials be doing, aside from telling the truth about the economy?

The Fed has a number of options. It can buy more long-term and private debt; it can push down long-term interest rates by announcing its intention to keep short-term rates low; it can raise its medium-term target for inflation, making it less attractive for businesses to simply sit on their cash. Nobody can be sure how well these measures would work, but it’s better to try something that might not work than to make excuses while workers suffer.

The administration has less freedom of action, since it can’t get legislation past the Republican blockade. But it still has options. It can revamp its deeply unsuccessful attempt to aid troubled homeowners. It can use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored lenders, to engineer mortgage refinancing that puts money in the hands of American families — yes, Republicans will howl, but they’re doing that anyway. It can finally get serious about confronting China over its currency manipulation: how many times do the Chinese have to promise to change their policies, then renege, before the administration decides that it’s time to act?

Which of these options should policy makers pursue? If I had my way, all of them.

I know what some players both at the Fed and in the administration will say: they’ll warn about the risks of doing anything unconventional. But we’ve already seen the consequences of playing it safe, and waiting for recovery to happen all by itself: it’s landed us in what looks increasingly like a permanent state of stagnation and high unemployment. It’s time to admit that what we have now isn’t a recovery, and do whatever we can to change that situation.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 3:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Here's another option: Collect up all the various Federal housing agencies, including the infamous public/private Fannie and Freddie, and nationalize them. Have the Fed step in and actually create loans at 4% instead of just buying them up ("securitizing" them).

Sound radical? Even dyed-in-the-wool capitalist and co-founder Bill Gross at PIMCO thinks it's a good idea:

Quote:
I proposed a solution that recognized the necessity, not the desirability, of using government involvement, which would take the form of rolling FNMA, FHLMC, and other housing agencies into one giant agency – call it GNMA or the Government National Mortgage Association for lack of a more perfect acronym – and guaranteeing a majority of existing and future originations. Taxpayers would be protected through tight regulation, adequate down payments, and an insurance fund bolstered by a 50–75 basis point fee attached to each and every mortgage. Seemed commonsensical to me. After all, Fannie and Freddie had really blown up because of the private/public nature of their charter, which incentivized executives and stockholders to go for broke with the implicit understanding that Uncle Sam would be there as a backstop should anything go wrong....

My argument for the necessity of government backing was substantially based on this commonsensical, psychological, indeed sociological observation that the great housing debacle of 2007–2010+ would have a profound influence on homebuyers and mortgage lenders for decades to come. What did we learn from the Great Depression, for instance: Americans, for at least a generation or more, became savers – dominated by the insecurity of 20%+ unemployment rates and importance of a return of their money as opposed to a return on their money. It should be no different this time, even though the Great R. is a tempered version of the Great D

www.pimco.com/Pages/MrGrossGoestoWashington.aspx?WT.svl=hero_IO

A word about Fannie and Freddie: Most right-wingers STILL point to them as the source of all ills. Real economists and capitalists, OTOH, recognize that Fannie and Freddie DID NOT CREATE LOANS, and were not "responsible" for the bad loans that WERE made. Of course, since facts don't matter to right-wingers, this particular piece of knowledge will have no impact on them. It's intended for people who still keep at least ONE eye on the real world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 4:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Mike, at the risk of undercutting your fine points with Anthony, I've just gotta get in a couple of jabs in his direction bc I'm so frustrated with his obtuseness: Tony believes in getting screwed over. Anything else just isn't "fair". That's his mantra, and he's sticking to it.

I disagree. I think Anthony's *used to* getting screwed over, and thus EXPECTS it, but that doesn't mean he's really into it. As many Americans are these days, he's a bit shell-shocked. I'm sure Frem can relate very well to this idea, but have you ever encountered a child or an animal that was constantly abused throughout its life, never shown any affection, only abuse and neglect? What happens when you try to tell them it shouldn't be that way? They reject you - they'll FIGHT YOU over it, because the very concept is alien to them by that point.

I think that's the point Anthony's trying to make. It's not "obtuseness", I don't think, because Anthony strikes me as quite a bright individual, and very even-keeled and fair in his beliefs. I think it's just that, like so many of us, he's so used to being fucked over - first by the corporations and the privileged, then by the government that ostensibly wants to "help" him, then serves him up on a platter to those same corporations and their backers - that the idea that it could be otherwise won't quite fit in his brain. It's the equivalent of trying to hand someone a windfall, only to have them pull their hand back saying, "What's the catch?" It doesn't mean you're not trying to help them; it just means they're not used to anyone doing so, and trust doesn't come easy.

And it's not really a bad outlook to have, given our recent history in such matters...

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 4:08 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Mike, at the risk of undercutting your fine points with Anthony, I've just gotta get in a couple of jabs in his direction bc I'm so frustrated with his obtuseness: Tony believes in getting screwed over. Anything else just isn't "fair". That's his mantra, and he's sticking to it."

Hello,

If it makes you feel better to say so, have at it.

You do realize when you say things like "Tax these particular people more" and "raid insurance companies for money" that you sound like a thief, right? You are the victim of your own vocabulary.

As an aside, the Estate Tax sounds like a horrible idea. I don't like taxing people for dying OR being born. The justification for such a tax seems to be, "Because we need the money and because they are rich." You won't win points with me for that line of reasoning.

Now, if you want to equalize taxes... (This is where vocabulary can work for you, not against you) that seems fair. There shouldn't be special categories for your income where you get to pay less taxes for earning money. I'd be happy to tax all income equally regardless of which category it falls into. (Assuming we're going to tax income at all- and it looks like that's not going away. Might as well be fair about it.)

So, any proposal that reads "Tax all income equally" or "Tax all persons equally" is going to go much farther with me than, "raise taxes on X guy."

It also saves you five paragraphs of explanation about how "Taxing X more" really means "Taxing X at the same rate as everyone else."

As for getting money from Insurance companies, the idea gives me the squiggies. It sounds like you're treating them as a piggybank. Try explaining that a bit differently for me.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.u

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 5:37 AM

Great, I'm a dim-witted economic theorist now.

Sig, the rich would speculate no matter what the economy is. There's still speculation in the damn real-estate market even when it's in tatters; when the freeze was lifted, banks started paying loans right back out again, at an alarming rate.

An inflation bubble takes a while to build, as more people see other people getting rich and jumping on the band wagon. And then it goes crashing down. It's like a pyramid scheme, only less organized.

Quote:
If YOU had a wad of cash, Byte, and you were looking to park it someplace where it would make more money, where would YOU put it right now? What underlying investment wouldn't depend on increased demand and an expanding economy? Mergers and acquisitions, maybe? Foreign currency? Gold? In other words: speculation.

And this is AFTER the crash, while the economy is still bad. The rich don't speculate because they have money and the poor don't, they just speculate period. You have not shown that it's a gap between the wealthy and the poor that causes a crash, or that bubbles bursting are not what CAUSES a crash. I would go on to say that it's a market crashing that causes a depression/recession, as such it is speculation that causes depressions/recessions. Not disparity of wealth.

By the by, while you have accurately illustrated the mindset of people who do invest in speculation ("everyone's getting rich! got to get in now!" and "wow, we've hit rock bottom, buy low, buy now now now!"), if I had a wad of cash, I would not invest in speculation, because I think speculation is a game with no good outcome that ruins people as often as it makes people rich, and screws everyone else.

Me, I'd invest in green energy projects. There's an increasing demand for them, and in the very least can recoup costs by selling back to the energy grid until the economy stabilizes and citizens buy into it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 6:32 AM

KANEMAN

I love that this is an economic thread about how shitty our economy is and at the same time a Liberal circle-jerk(minus Byte). I find it hilarious that conservatives are keeping away from this thread...we are laughing our asses off. And will join this thread in early November. Your President Sucks, his economic policies suck, or is all Bush's fault?....you decide......Squirt.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 6:50 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I love that this is an economic thread about how shitty our economy is and at the same time a Liberal circle-jerk(minus Byte). I find it hilarious that conservatives are keeping away from this thread...we are laughing our asses off. And will join this thread in early November. Your President Sucks, his economic policies suck, or is all Bush's fault?....you decide......Squirt.

Now, it’s arguable that even in early 2009, when President Obama was at the peak of his popularity, he couldn’t have gotten a bigger plan through the Senate. And he certainly couldn’t pass a supplemental stimulus now. So officials could, with considerable justification, place the onus for the non-recovery on Republican obstructionism. But they’ve chosen, instead, to draw smiley faces on a grim picture, convincing nobody. And the likely result in November — big gains for the obstructionists — will paralyze policy for years to come.

A picture is worth a 1000... Obama is Wash.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 7:01 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by two:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I love that this is an economic thread about how shitty our economy is and at the same time a Liberal circle-jerk(minus Byte). I find it hilarious that conservatives are keeping away from this thread...we are laughing our asses off. And will join this thread in early November. Your President Sucks, his economic policies suck, or is all Bush's fault?....you decide......Squirt.
Now, it’s arguable that even in early 2009, when President Obama was at the peak of his popularity, he couldn’t have gotten a bigger plan through the Senate. And he certainly couldn’t pass a supplemental stimulus now. So officials could, with considerable justification, place the onus for the non-recovery on Republican obstructionism. But they’ve chosen, instead, to draw smiley faces on a grim picture, convincing nobody. And the likely result in November — big gains for the obstructionists — will paralyze policy for years to come.

A picture is worth a 1000... Obama is Wash.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

You are using the word "obstructionists" as if it is a bad thing. I feel they are trying to do the right thing by obstructing a monstrous federal bureaucracy(with political points earned

). Putting trillion of debt on my children is unacceptable. That is why we have a tea party movement...it is non-partisan movement (despite what the MSM tells you or FOX for that matter). we railed against Bush and voted for Ron Paul.

That there is a tea party caucus is huge. However, all big government types are going to go in the next 20 years...this is just the beginning the "middle" has awoken. We do not want Obama and we do not want Bush.....call it what you will....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 7:42 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
You are using the word "obstructionists" as if it is a bad thing. I feel they are trying to do the right thing by obstructing a monstrous federal bureaucracy(with political points earned ). Putting trillion of debt on my children is unacceptable. That is why we have a tea party movement...it is non-partisan movement (despite what the MSM tells you or FOX for that matter). we railed against Bush and voted for Ron Paul.

That there is a tea party caucus is huge. However, all big government types are going to go in the next 20 years...this is just the beginning the "middle" has awoken. We do not want Obama and we do not want Bush.....call it what you will....

I have seen the future of America if Ron Paul or Ross Perot or the Tea Party or Sarah Palin eventually gets even half of what they want. America becomes... Argentina of North America. Just like in Argentina, Americans will never agree on which combination of confused decisions caused a bad future. Was it the Falkland War? Was it poor fiscal policy? Monetary policy? Maradona, the retired Soccer Star? Whatever.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 9:20 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, what I know about economics wouldn't fill a friggin thimble, but this bomb I GOT to throw.

I think HOW those fortunes were obtained oughta be addressed.

Now, I do realize that a lot of "old-money" passed down in the dynasties was obtained in nefarious fashion, but going after that retroactively is as damn fool as slavery reperations... suing the grandson for the deeds of his grandpa is idiotic, but if the jackass in power happens to be the same one who committed the bulk of the criminal activity, they should be fair game!

That said - think on this.

Two man each rob a bank - one gets house arrest and a tiny fine, the second, 25-to-life, even though the first ones "take" is many times that of the second, only HE used a briefcase and a suit instead of a gun... but IMHO, it's still the same crime!

I mean, does it make sense to fine someone less than 1% of what they stole, and let them walk damn near free ?

Fuck that, Enron, Microsoft, all these shitheads who ripped off, shafted, or whatever you wanna call it, unto folk, make them CRIMINALLY LIABLE, and not just for some pathetic percentage, EVERY FUCKIN DIME, plus a penalty, enough of this free ride shit.

And if your EMPIRE (lookin at you, Mr Gates) RESTS on a pattern of proven criminal behavior, you get RICO'd, fuck you, we'll be having those ill-gotten gains back, none of this bullshit about letting it go cause it was so slick once it gets over a certain amount - that's like the old joke how killin one is murder, kill a hundred and you get medals, grrr.

Oh, and that "bailout" giveway, we'll be having THAT back too, unconstitutional, unauthorised, and perhaps even impeachable as well as criminally liable.
(sorry Barack, thems the facts)

You used deceptive, misleading and false claims to sell shit, no penny-ante fine for you, ALL the proceeds from the entire time you were - GONE.

You used a phony shell-shill game to float stock, no piddly fine for you, every DIME of profit you made while doing so - GONE.

You make false claims to get bailout, stimulus, or federal grant funds - TRIPLE PAYBACK baby, you don't fuck with unca sam no more, he's not your sugar daddy.

Quit handing out the free ride, end the corporate welfare that is a quarter of our defense budget, and most importantly, cut off the THIRD which is nothing more than protection money to protect us from our own fucking alphabet goons, since every goddamn "terrorist" seems to be on their payroll, no wonder they "guarantee" we will be "attacked" if we stop handing over the money, well no shit since all the goons are on their fuckin payroll.

Do that, and this whole stupid sham will fall flat since they cannot even fake a currency shortage when most "money" these days is electronic.

End of recession, depression, whatever you wanna call it.

Of course, what do I know....
*shrug*

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 9:46 AM

Yeah. Unethical business practices also hurt the economy. If people want a free market, then there's some house cleaning that needs to be done first.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 10:06 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I have seen the future of America if Ron Paul or Ross Perot or the Tea Party or Sarah Palin eventually gets even half of what they want."

Hello,

Which Half? It matters. And lumping those folks together is odd. They want different things. Ron Paul and Sarah Palin likely have very different views on the wars and national defense, for instance.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 10:31 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Would an upside-down tax system work?

Instead of taxing you for making money, taxing you when you spend it?

I realize such a thing would tend to create a society of conservative spenders, who prefer to save than to spend money.

On the other hand, people need things. So some spending will always occur.

Could an economy that penalizes spending instead of earning be successful?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 10:45 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I have seen the future of America if Ron Paul or Ross Perot or the Tea Party or Sarah Palin eventually gets even half of what they want. America becomes... Argentina of North America."

Hello,

Which Half? It matters. And lumping those folks together is odd. They want different things. Ron Paul and Sarah Palin likely have very different views on the wars and national defense, for instance.

--Anthony

I lumped 'em together because they feel alienated from their government, distressed about the economy and frightened of the future. (None of that applies to me.) But most important, they have incoherent plans, or none, for a better future. (That part applies to me. All I got are opinions.) I know there are subtle difference between them, but so what? They're disasters waiting to happen if they get control. (Same as me.) I don't like Obama, yet he is no disaster. Nor was Bush, if you were rich and not an infantryman. Poor Pat Tillman.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 10:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I'm glad you're not distressed about the economy or worried about the future. And I'm glad you feel cozy with government.

I'd probably be a lot happier if I could shed all my concerns about all three of these things like an old overcoat.

I have no idea how to achieve that kind of bliss, however.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 11:39 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I'm glad you're not distressed about the economy or worried about the future. And I'm glad you feel cozy with government.

I'd probably be a lot happier if I could shed all my concerns about all three of these things like an old overcoat.

I have no idea how to achieve that kind of bliss, however.

--Anthony

I'm not cozy with Obama, yet I'm not alienated either. May I suggest that Buddhism works? Think of how peaceful Inara is. She only kills Reavers and only fights with assholes like Jayne and Mal. Inara is balance and moderation. There are a lot like her in this world, just not in America. On the other hand, Atheist Malcolm is a complete mess and Christian Book isn't much better. People with Abrahamic monotheistic faiths are always arguing & fighting amongst themselves and neighbors. Does that seem smart to you? Seems very zero-sum game to me, much like American politics.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 27, 2010 11:51 AM